Just lifting weights won't give you muscle definition. Losing body fat is what makes your muscles show, regardless of how big they are. You will look ripped if your body fat % is below 10% even if you're a wimp, and you will have very little muscle definition if your body fat is over 20% even with huge muscles. So go get on a good diet... at about 10% body fat is the magic number, at that point you get to see your whole six-pack.

Also, doing curls with light weights is a terrible way to exercise. Curls are horrible exercises for newbie weight lifters, the reason you see pros doing them is because their muscles are so tough even after a whole workout with deadlifts, barbell rows and pull-ups their biceps aren't beat out yet, and then they use huge weights not 10-pounders. If you're serious about putting on some muscle mass and strenght check out the Starting Strenght lifting program, that's awesome for beginners. For a good diet program to lean down, check out Lean Gains, I'm on it right now, it's going fantastic, much better than any other I've tried before.

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"]You still don't get it. Conspiracy has nothing to do with it. They are legally obligated to act within the best interests of the corporation. Let's say tomorrow one of them comes out and says something that goes against the best interests of their corporation and that hurts their corporation (causes a drop in the stock's price). They've just breached their duties as a corporate officer and have opened themselves up to legal suit. The corporation can now choose to sue that officer directly, or shareholders can seek a shareholder derivative suit to force the corporation to sue that officer.=What this means is that they cannot say something that will damage the corporation. Their hands are tied.Vandalvideo

Statistics also aren't a crystalline source of data, they can be cherry-picked and manipulated however the statician wants and in fact most business-related studies do so. Before you believe in any study you have to research who the people who paid for said study were. This isn't just related to a silly gaming argument either, it's generally a good idea unless you like the idea of being herded like a blindfolded sheep by junk scientists. For a couple minor examples: Remember that study that claimed as a fact that second-hand smoking was dangerous? It was proved to be a bogus study based on shaky information, but it was published anyways as a fact by the anti-tobacco watchdog groups who had paid for it. Remember that study that said that eating eggs could be hazardous for health because it raised blood cholesterol? Well it turns out the study's results were skewed and intentionally published incomplete. It was later clarified by Olympic athletes' nutritionist experts that while eggs have a high cholesterol content, it is a different sort than the one that causes health problems, and eating eggs could actually lower the levels of bad cholesterol in your blood. What was the reason the original study published bogus information? While it may sound ridiculous, it's because it was paid for by a board of cereal distributors hoping to get people who ate eggs for breakfast to consume their product instead.

When it comes to business studies and business analysis, you'd be a fool to assume they're giving your crystalline facts as data (in fact you have no way yourself to corroborate that this study is right). They're interested in giving a sugar-coated version of things to stock holders and don't really care about the truth getting to the lowly end-consumers like us.